How are capturing neutrals calculated?

If uk and germ both attack nl, how does the game calculate this?

Honestly, I have no idea, but I think that UK and Germany would fight it out and then survivors hit neutral. I've seen games where 2 ppl send good stacks to take the same place, and when the dust settles only neutral is left.

Germany and UK trades in both atk and defense, meaning that mixed stacks with 50% Tanks 50% Infrantry have the best chance of winning. They'll trade in turns against each other and the netural.

Scritto da Leo, 26.02.2017 at 18:42

meaning that mixed stacks with 50% Tanks 50% Infrantry have the best chance of winning.

EDIT: I re-calculated the battle without upgrades, the result doesn't vary much.

wow what the actual fuck... It's obvious that the split distribution allows you to achieve your best roll be it on attack (tanks) or defense (infantries). But a more deep study aims at the sum of the stack's attack / defense value as it allows you to get the best potential of the rolls.

However, I can see now that my theory failed to take the battle stacking bonus into account. Or more than that, I'm actually impressed that the average attack of both sides are nearly equal (worsen, the second stack has a higher average!), doesn't even compensate the (expected) difference in their average defense. I had previously made theses calculations excluding the battle stacking bonus and I can confidently say that the 40 tanks would win more often.

The results were so shocking that I tried to distribute the tank's total stats (12). In comparison with 20 tanks, 20 infantries (all the units with 5% critical):

1) 11 attack, 1 defense -> 30% winning rate
2) 6 attack, 6 defense -> 11% winning rate
3) 1 attack, 11 defense -> 41% winning rate

Again, I expected the 6/6 stats units to perform better, but looks like it's the worst possible combination. This even though 6/6 stats unit have equal(50% tested) chances of beating any unit whose total stats sum is 12 (like 11 attack 1 def or 1 att 11 def).

Everything on defense slight works better than everything on attack due to the tie clause being more often (defender wins tie).

Nonetheless I guess I gotta admit that a 50% distribution of offensive and defensive unit is the most important factor for situations in which you have to attack and defend at the same time.

P.S: This doesn't explains why Spain LB rush is stronger than GC though. Without extra reinf and w/ all the upgrades:



Empirical proof (a resume, the rest is on my tips, trick and curiosities thread):

Scritto da clovis1122, 27.09.2014 at 09:10

Scritto da Permamuted, 27.09.2014 at 08:49

pd would be next, succeeding roughly 50% of the time, youre more likely to succeed if you send everything and dont use any wfs on the sea. probably > 50%

Laochra is correct. I tested NC france vs PD spain 3 times, and PD actually won 2 of 3:

<proof>

However, LB sucess 2 of 3 times, and with a better troop number that PD:

<proof>

For theses attempts, we used 18 tanks, general and 20 infantry (39 troops) vs 45 infantry, general and 1 tank. If we charge spain from 39 to 42 troops, then it is likery to have more sucess (same with LB spain).

I am thinking about charge the curiousity: Insteat of LB we put the strat that have more sucess rate against NC france. As lao say, there is no guarantee of victory against NC france. If someone can test GC and post the results or I test it later on.

Clovis, can you balance the government accounts and end world-wide debt for all of us?

Scritto da clovis1122, 27.02.2017 at 11:21

u sayin' lb's +10 crit is better than gc's +2hp?

Scritto da brianwl, 28.02.2017 at 17:30

Clovis, can you balance the government accounts and end world-wide debt for all of us?

Actually I love debts. I used to dislike them a lot until my last trimester (3 months) in which I took a project management matter at the university and learned how beneficial it is to be in debts

Scritto da boywind2, 28.02.2017 at 17:54

Scritto da clovis1122, 27.02.2017 at 11:21

u sayin' lb's +10 crit is better than gc's +2hp?

+1hp, -2 defense for tanks. +1 hp, -2 attack for infantries*

Yes. Actually the Nerf hurts GC in attack and defense battles... They're just slight better than None. Think I explained that in a post to Chess some threads ago.

I would say that LB is better (than GC) for attack and defense situation simply because its Nerf doesn't influence in the battle outcome. Obviously, if we were to judge the strategies for their battle power then IF would win the first place. The example was merely to illustrate how a Nerf on a not-primary-role affect the battle stacking bonus of a primary unit.

Scritto da clovis1122, 28.02.2017 at 20:31

Scritto da brianwl, 28.02.2017 at 17:30

Clovis, can you balance the government accounts and end world-wide debt for all of us?

Actually I love debts. I used to dislike them a lot until my last trimester (3 months) in which I took a project management matter at the university and learned how beneficial it is to be in debts

Oh... but isn't debt the foundation of modern day slavery? (Creating an obligation, by which failure to repay can lead to free will violations , up to and including imprisonment.)
Are you openly supporting slavery then?

i thought you respected free will choice

Scritto da boywind2, 28.02.2017 at 17:54

Scritto da clovis1122, 27.02.2017 at 11:21

u sayin' lb's +10 crit is better than gc's +2hp?

Ofc its better lb is almost as strong as IF

Scritto da clovis1122, 28.02.2017 at 20:31

well if defense wins a tie, maybe 18 tanks and 20 inf is too many tanks, try less tanks more inf into the calculation and you might have better results ( maybe only 14 tanks )
not to mention lucky inf > lucky tanks

Scritto da Checkmate., 07.03.2017 at 10:15

Scritto da clovis1122, 28.02.2017 at 20:31

not to mention lucky inf > lucky tanks

I actually took the lucky upgrades into account, hence why I wrote this:

Scritto da clovis1122, 27.02.2017 at 11:21

EDIT: I re-calculated the battle without upgrades, the result doesn't vary much.

Scritto da Checkmate., 07.03.2017 at 10:15

well if defense wins a tie, maybe 18 tanks and 20 inf is too many tanks, try less tanks more inf into the calculation and you might have better results ( maybe only 14 tanks )

Unsure. I had previously tried 21 infs 19 tanks VS against a fully mixed army (20 tanks, 20 infs) and the results varies a bit (in flavor of the first army). Tried 22 infs 18 tanks and the difference expanded a bit. But after 23 infs 17 tanks the difference turned minimal. If you keep going (like, 24 infs 16 tanks) then you will have a lower winning rate than the fully mixed army

To summarize:

22 infs, 18 tanks -> 52% winning rate.
20 infs, 20 tanks -> 48% winning rate.

I then ran several sets of 10,000 battles each, along with 100,000 battles loop and the 22 infantries, 18 tanks consistently scored better than the fully mixed army.

To conclude:

The difference may be small, perhaps in the % error margin of many players (me include). But it does makes sense than a stack slight inclined toward the defender have a better winning rate.

P.S: also how comes I didn't realized this??? Am I too old for this game?

Scritto da clovis1122, 07.03.2017 at 11:06

To conclude:

The difference may be small, perhaps in the % error margin of many players (me include). But it does makes sense than a stack slight inclined toward the defender have a better winning rate.

P.S: also how comes I didn't realized this??? Am I too old for this game?

You're starting to get out of touch with the game huh? I thought such thing was known before since attackers take turns. I remember some random high rank (can't remember who exactly) telling me about this a couple years ago.